Esther wrote, > The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it > considers....or advises. > I really hope the Board invests in a dictionary. Ad-vise is in ad- dition to a vis-ion. An ad-vis-or is given something to look at, and _adds its views_. It does not set its own agenda, and the ICANN board had damn well better prove to be responsible for what the GAC considers or it will lose its license. Frankly, I was going to suggest you re-view (even re-vise) the minutes of the 8/12 meeting before they were posted, but it sounds as if its too late for that. In any case, from your selective response, I infer that the answers to the antecedent questions > Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory > Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the > BoD? Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this > advice, against the recommendations of "staff"? are "I am not aware of any reason," "Yes" and "No." Are those correct? Will it then be correct to infer that the Board will have no reason -- unless the GAC gives it one, extemporaneously -- to consider a GAC report on the cited points at the meetings of 8/25- 26? If, on the other hand, the Board does consider it, will that report be posted according to Art III, Sec 3(b), "With respect to any policies that are being considered for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties..., the Board will... provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what policies are being considered for adoption *and why*..."? kerry
